The DOJ Just Made a Baffling Legal Error on the Benson Magazine Win — Here's Why It Matters

About a month ago, we had a genuine Second Amendment win worth celebrating. The DC Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 panel decision, ruled that Washington D.C.'s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The case was Benson v. United States, and it was significant because it created a split of authority between D.C.'s highest court and the anti-gun courts across the country that have upheld magazine bans. That split matters — it adds pressure on the Supreme Court to eventually weigh in.

Then this week, the Trump DOJ's U.S. Attorney for D.C., Janine Pirro, agreed that the full DC Court of Appeals should rehear the case en banc. And according to constitutional attorney Mark Smith of The Four Boxes Diner — one of the sharpest Second Amendment legal analysts in the country — that was a baffling mistake.

What Is En Banc Rehearing and Why Does It Matter?

When a three-judge appellate panel issues a ruling, the losing side can ask the full court to rehear it "en banc" — meaning all the judges sit together and take a fresh look. En banc rehearings often reverse panel wins. In courts that lean anti-gun, that's a serious risk.

The Pirro DOJ's argument for supporting en banc rehearing appears to be that a fuller ruling from the full D.C. court would carry more legal weight and be harder for other courts to dismiss. The idea: get a clean, authoritative en banc opinion upholding the Second Amendment, and that becomes a stronger precedent.

Mark Smith disagrees — strongly. As he explained in today's video, the legal reasoning behind that strategy is simply wrong. The three-judge panel win already creates the authority split that puts pressure on SCOTUS. Risking that win by sending it back to a full court — which could reverse it — is not worth the potential upside. A loss en banc wipes out the win entirely and removes the very circuit split that was driving SCOTUS attention.

Why This Connects to Illinois

Here in Illinois, we've been watching magazine ban litigation closely since we filed Bevis v. Naperville back in September 2022. The Benson decision mattered to us directly — our attorneys filed a supplemental authority notice with the Seventh Circuit pointing to that ruling as evidence that magazine bans are falling in other jurisdictions.

If the en banc D.C. court reverses Benson, that supplemental authority argument weakens. The Seventh Circuit, still sitting on its PICA decision, loses one more data point from a sister court supporting our side.

That's why I'm watching this closely. Legal strategy at the national level ripples down to what happens in Illinois courtrooms.

What Gun Owners Should Understand

Mark Smith's broader point is one every gun owner needs to internalize: winning in court is not just about the outcome of one case. It's about building a record of consistent rulings that forces the Supreme Court to act. Every appellate win — even in a non-circuit court like the D.C. Court of Appeals — adds to that pressure.

Agreeing to en banc rehearing risks undoing that progress for reasons that, as Smith explains, don't hold up under scrutiny. The DOJ may have good intentions here. But good intentions with bad legal strategy can set the movement back.

At Law Weapons, we keep watching these developments because what happens in D.C. today lands on our customers' doorsteps tomorrow. We'll keep you updated as the en banc process unfolds.

— Robert Bevis
Law Weapons & Supply